Justice in War
Just-war theory

Email this information to a friend

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO executive editor, October 15, 2001 1:35 p.m.

Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and author of In Defense of Natural Law.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Is what we have begun to do in Afghanistan "just"?

Robert P. George: The use of military force against terrorist networks and regimes abetting their crimes is certainly justifiable. These networks and regimes have, by their repeated attacks, made it abundantly clear that they will not be deterred from committing additional atrocities by anything short of force. Our leaders are, in my judgment, morally obligated to use as much force as necessary, subject to the principles of just warfare, to protect innocent Americans and other potential victims of terrorism. It would be an injustice for them to fail to employ the necessary force. Order now: essay write. Order the abstract of 600р! An office is Moscow.

Lopez: What makes a just war? Is there a checklist?

George: There is a set of principles establishing criteria for moral evaluation of the use, or possible use, of military force. First, war can be justified only in self-defense or defense of others. Wars may not legitimately be fought for national glory, to avenge past wrongs, for territorial gain, or for any other non-defensive purpose. Of course, force may rightly be used, as in the Persian Gulf War, to evict an invading and occupying power. This is an essentially defensive purpose. A second principle of just war requires that the use of force have a reasonable likelihood of success. Lives may not be sacrificed and taken in futile causes. A third principle demands that force be used only when non-violent means will not suffice. A fourth recognizes the immunity of non-combatants from deliberate attack. Although it can be permissible to perform military actions that foreseeable result in the death or injury of noncombatants (so-called "collateral damage"), it is never permissible to make the harming of noncombatants the object of the actions. Thus, killing civilians for revenge, or even as a means of deterring aggression by people who sympathize with them, is forbidden. A fifth principle requires that the use of force, especially where harm to noncombatants is likely, be "proportionate" to the evil being opposed. Pampered Passions

Relatedly, norms of fairness must be observed in electing to perform acts one knows will likely cause such harm. The just-war tradition affirms the sanctity of life and the principle of equal human dignity. The Golden Rule forbids treating people we don't know or who have no connection with us or who differ from us in ways that are irrelevant to their status as noncombatants as having less of a right to life than people who happen to be our fellow citizens.

Lopez: What does the Pope think of the war on terrorism?

George: The Pope has placed a great deal of emphasis on the third principle I mentioned. His constant plea is for nations to go the extra mile in seeking nonviolent means of resolving disputes. Still, he is careful not to rule out the use of force. Nothing he has said contradicts the traditional understanding that the use of force can be not only permissible but morally required. Indeed, the papal spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, recently stated that the use of force against terrorists by the United States and our allies can be "an action of active prevention against a threat that has already occurred in the horror of a few weeks ago and can happen again." car cheap car rentals company budget charges

Lopez: There has been some press coverage of a debate between Vatican hawks and doves. What is that about? And how close is it to debates we are having here?

George: There are, I believe, no significant differences on moral principles. There are, however, differences of prudential judgment that bear on the application of principles to the concrete case at hand. Some people apparently believe that military force should be delayed until further diplomatic possibilities are exhausted. Other people fear that a war against terrorism will be futile, or that it can succeed only if the degree of force used is disproportionate in terms of harm to no-combatants. Everyone in the Vatican knows, however, that President Bush must act in good faith on his own prudential judgments.

Lopez: How does the response of the bishops in the United States differ from the papal response?

George: Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, in his capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has written to President Bush to affirm America's " moral right" and "grave obligation to defend the common good" in the face of terrorism. In the same letter, Bishop Fiorenza emphasizes the moral duty to respect just-war principles in fulfilling this obligation. He called particular attention to the requirements of "probability of success," "civilian immunity," and "proportionality."

Lopez: Are the tenets of a just war shared by denominations?

George: The just-war theory is a common patrimony of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians. (There are, of course, small Christian pacifist denominations.) Moreover, the teachings of Jewish tradition on war and peace are closely in line with it. Just-war theory is sometimes identified as "Catholic," and it is true that modern popes have explicitly invoked it and made important contributions to its development. It is, however, by no means uniquely Catholic.

Lopez: Is the idea of a jihad ever just?

George: I think it best to speak in terms of "just" rather than "holy" wars. The key thing is to comprehend and comply with the principles of justice in deciding whether and how to use force. The God worshiped by Christians and Jews is a God of (among other things) justice. Justice is (among other things) what He demands of us. And He demands it of nations and kings and presidents as well as of subjects and citizens.

Lopez: One of our goals, as stated by the president, is to rid the world of evil? Is that reasonable?

George: No president, no military force can do that. But actions can be taken to eliminate, or at least blunt the force of, particular evils, whether they are natural evils like landslides or polio or moral evils such as Nazism, communism, and terrorism. In attempting to express the depth of his commitment to fight the evil of terrorism, the president overstated the breadth of what can be accomplished. Still, one cannot fail to be impressed by the depth of GeorgeW. Bush's commitment. And I thank heaven that we have a leader who is willing to call evil by its proper name.
 

Home | Email this information to a friend | Questions?